The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, President Clinton makes a deal to avoid prosecution, we have that story with Stuart Taylor and Tom Oliphant, plus a longer view of the Clinton presidency from Haynes Johnson, Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Richard Norton Smith and Roger Wilkins; and Mark Shields and Paul Gigot. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton made a deal today to avoid prosecution after he leaves office. The agreement was with Independent Counsel Robert Ray. Mr. Clinton admitted he knowingly made false statements about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in a deposition for the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. But his lawyer said that was not an admission that he lied.

ATTORNEY: He doesn't make any such acknowledgment. He has, from the beginning, at least from the Grand Jury, conceded that he tried to conceal the relationship with Miss Lewinsky. He tried to conceal that, and we have acknowledged that was evasive in this meeting, but it is not obstruction of justice; it's not intentional falsification.

JIM LEHRER: The President agreed to surrender his Arkansas law license for five years, and pay a fine of $25,000. In exchange, Ray closed his investigation of Mr. Clinton without bringing any criminal charges. We'll have more on this story right after this News Summary. The combative Senate hearings on John Ashcroft concluded today. Republican Leader, Trent Lott, predicted he'd be confirmed as Attorney General, with up to 70 votes. The hearings for Gale Norton also ended. The Interior Secretary nominee rejected criticism she did not do enough as Attorney General of Colorado to fight pollution.

SPOKESPERSON: There are several of the cases that you cited where people on my staff put in years of work in trying to bring polluters to justice, in trying to solve problems -- they worked with the state health department in trying to get companies to follow the law. And when those companies did not follow the law, they worked to take action against them. We brought together, and I was the impetus for creating a cooperative federal, state, and local task force to deal with environmental crimes in Colorado.

JIM LEHRER: Norton would be the first woman to head the Interior Department. Also today, Tommy Thompson said he'd review federal approval of the abortion pill, RU-486, if he becomes Secretary of Health and Human Services. But he told Senators he would not try to outlaw the pill, unless it was proved unsafe. There were new questions today about the Osprey, the Marine Corps' tilt-rotor aircraft. The commander of the only Osprey squadron was relieved Thursday. Today, the marines released a letter from a mechanic. It alleged the commander asked subordinates to falsify maintenance data for two years, but the head of Marine Corps Aviation said there was no connection to two fatal crashes last year.

SPOKESMAN: What you're going to see that the allegations were is that they would make the readiness data look better than it was -- in other words, 80% instead of 60% or whatever. And I don't think that anywhere in that letter, that anybody will ever find where no one did maintenance or where they ever sent an aircraft out that wasn't safe.

JIM LEHRER: Defense Secretary Cohen said today, officials need more answers before giving the go-ahead to full production of the Osprey. It would cost an estimated $40 billion. Cohen closed another review today, into the suicide bombing of the U.S.S. "Cole." Seventeen sailors died in that attack last October in Aden, Yemen. The Navy's final report found no U.S. personnel should be disciplined, but Cohen said link in the chain of command was responsible, including himself.

WILLIAM COHEN: We were not complacent, but the terrorists found new opportunities before we found new protections. And we need better, more specific intelligence to prepare commanders for new and uncertain locations. We need force protection procedures that are more imaginative, more flexible and less predictable. And most of all we need force protection programs that are less reactive and more proactive.

JIM LEHRER: The FBI investigation continues. In the Philippines today, the government of President Estrada fell apart, in the face of massive protests. They began after his impeachment trial collapsed three days ago. We have a report from Robert Moore of "Independent Television News."

ROBERT MOORE: During an evening of political drama and of mounting confusion, armored personnel carriers moved in and out of the Presidential palace in manila, fueling rumors that President Estrada is poised to flee the country. The military appear to have turned decisively against his rule, siding with the Vice President and other opposition figures, who say that following allegations of corruption, President Estrada has no moral authority to stay in power.

SPOKESMAN: We are withdrawing support from the incumbent President. (Applause)

ROBERT MOORE: The defection of key military leaders has delighted the huge crowds gathered in Manila who have been demanding the resignation of Estrada; his position now seems untenable. There are reports he may seek political asylum. In a statement to the nation, President Estrada declared he was sad it had come to this, and he again offered to hand power over to an elected successor. But it seems tonight his hold on power is rapidly collapsing, with reports he is negotiating for a pardon and a dignified exit from the presidency.

JIM LEHRER: In Washington, a State Department spokesman said there were no plans, for now, for the United States to help Estrada go into exile. George W. Bush made the rounds of pre-inaugural events today. This morning he joined his wife Laura at a gathering of authors. That was followed by a salute to American veterans, this afternoon. Bush said their sacrifices showed America's greatness, and the need for soldiers to be well-paid and well-housed.

PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE W. BUSH: There are thousands of Americans who, when called, are willing to serve a cause greater than self. What an honor to be here. Less than 24 hours, I have the highest honor, and that's to become the commander in chief of the greatest nation in the world. I accept that honor with pride. I accept that honor with purpose. Thank you for having me, and God bless America.

JIM LEHRER: Bush takes the oath of office at the capital at noon tomorrow Eastern Time. Today, a federal judge ruled inaugural security plans will not violate the rights of protesters. For the first time, there will be checkpoints and searches on the parade route. Police predict the biggest inaugural protests since 1973, during the Vietnam War. California Governor Gray Davis signed an emergency power plan today. It allows the state to buy energy on the open market, then sell it cheaply to utilities. That will help them avoid immediate bankruptcy, and keep electricity flowing. Twice this week, power regulators ordered rolling blackouts to conserve energy. And that's it for the News Summary tonight, now it's on to the Clinton deal, with Taylor and Oliphant, then Beschloss, Johnson, Goodwin, Smith and Wilkins, and Shields and Gigot.

JIM LEHRER: The arrangement between President Clinton and the Independent Counsel: The President's statement was read in the White House briefing room this afternoon by his spokesman, Jake Siewert.

JAKE SIEWERT: "Today I signed a consent order in the lawsuit brought by the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct, which brings to an end that proceeding. I have accepted a five-year suspension of my law license, agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to cover counsel fees, and acknowledged a violation of one of the Arkansas model rules of professional conduct, because of testimony in my Paula Jones case deposition. The disbarment suit will now be dismissed. I have taken every step I can to end this matter. I have already settled the Paula Jones case, even after it was dismissed as being completely without legal and factual merit. I have also paid court and counsel fees in restitution, and been held in civil contempt for my deposition testimony regarding Ms. Lewinsky, which Judge Wright agreed had no bearing on ms. Jones' case, even though I disagreed with the findings in the judge's order. I will not seek any legal fees incurred as a result of the Lewinsky investigation, to which I might otherwise become entitled under the Independent Counsel Act. I have had occasion, frequently, to reflect on the Jones case. In this consent order, I acknowledge having knowingly violated Judge Wright's discovery orders in my deposition in that case. I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal, and that certain of my responses to questions about ms. Lewinsky were false. I have apologized for my conduct, and I have done my best to atone for it with my family, my administration and the American people. I have paid a high price for it, which I accept, because it caused so much pain to so many people. I hope my actions today will help bring closure and finality to these matters."

And with that, I will take your questions?

REPORTER: When did he sign the order? Was that signed today? And what is his mood now? I mean, he's leaving with humiliation.

JAKE SIEWERT: The President's lawyers have been involved, over the past several weeks, in a discussion with both parties. Obviously, they've been in discussions with the office of the Independent Counsel for a long time, along with the parties in Arkansas. But the case was brought to a close in the last couple of weeks, and the actual exchange of letters happened this morning. The President, I think you saw him last night, and he knew full well then what was happening today. The President is upbeat about his future, looking forward to putting this behind him, and returning to life in New York and resuming his duties as a citizen of the United States.

REPORTER: Does the President feel this deal is fair? Does he feel he was pushed into acknowledging wrongdoing, and that this is still kind of unfair?

JAKE SIEWERT: Well, I think the President felt like the punishment in the disbarment case went well beyond what was ordinary in these cases, but he wanted to put it behind him, and he wanted to bring that chapter to a close.

JIM LEHRER: Shortly afterward, a few blocks away in Washington, Independent Counsel Robert Ray read his statement.

ROBERT RAY: 15 months ago, I promised the American people that I would complete this investigation promptly and responsibly. Today I fulfill that promise. President Clinton has acknowledged responsibility for his actions. He has admitted that he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers to questions in the Jones deposition, and that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. He has acknowledged that some of his answers were false. He has agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas bar license, and he has agreed not to seek attorneys' fees in connection with this matter. The nation's interests have been served and, therefore, I decline prosecution. In doing so, I have tried toheed Justice Robert Jackson's wisdom. The citizens' safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility. I trust that the decision made today, meets the expectations of the American people, who deserve a resolution that acknowledges the President's conduct, respects America's institutions, and demonstrates sensitivity to our constitutional system of government. This matter is now concluded. May history and the American people judge that it has been concluded justly. Thank you very much.

JIM LEHRER: And to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: We get more on this agreement from two journalists who followed the Clinton investigations closely over the years, Stuart Taylor of the "National Journal" and "Newsweek," and Tom Oliphant of the "Boston Globe." Well, gentlemen, all right, Tom. How and why did this come about on the last full day of the Clinton presidency?

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, for a number of reasons, and I must say this is one of these settlements that has the complexity worthy of the Vietnam peace talks in many respects. But there was a kind of a deadline in the sense of President Clinton about to leave office. My understanding is that Robert Ray, the prosecutor, was most anxious, in the public interest, to get an admission from a sitting President of wrongdoing -- that that was the highest priority that he had. And he also had a club down the stretch in the sense that if these discussions had not been successful, the possibility would have existed that he would have started as a prosecutor with a clean slate next week, and could have proceeded with a case that might have resulted in indictment.

MARGARET WARNER: So in other words, are you saying that Ray made clear to Clinton-- to President Clinton's lawyers that if they didn't reach a deal by today, all bets were off.

TOM OLIPHANT: That doesn't prejudge what would happen. But it was very important for him in the public interest I'm told that this admission come from somebody who was a sitting President of the United States. And of course from President Clinton's standpoint, the advantages again are obvious in the sense that while he drew some very firm lines that he would not cross in these negotiations, getting it over with is obviously preferable to having it go on.

STUART TAYLOR: I can only really think of one reason why it would have been so important to Ray for it to happen while he was President, and that is the amount of attention it gets. It gets huge attention when he does it on January 19 of this year. If he had done it three weeks from now, it would have been a blip or close to a blip.

MARGARET WARNER: As a legal matter, does it also establish any kind of principle about a sitting President having to acknowledge something?

STUART TAYLOR: No, I don't think so. I think probably the better of the argument is that you cannot indict a sitting President in a criminal proceeding, at least not for something like this.

And I don't think this changes that at all. He has not admitted to committing a crime. You notice - he only admitted - and it is exquisitely negotiated -- I won't call you a liar if you don't call me a vast right wing conspiracy, right. But he has admitted that some of his answers were false. He has admitted that he was deliberately misleading. Some of that he had admitted before. He admitted that it obstructed the bar proceeding-- I'm sorry, the civil lawsuit and agreed to accept a five-year suspension. He hasn't agreed to any criminal sanction at all, and he has most definitely has not said anything that's tantamount to "I committed a crime."

MARGARET WARNER: It is worth noting here he's only admitting anything about his testimony in the Paula Jones deposition, not about the Grand Jury testimony.

TOM OLIPHANT: Margaret, that was the first line that President Clinton's set down on his end of the negotiations and said he would not cross. I mean, as a matter of fact, as I'm sure Stuart knows, the bulk of the sources expended by Robert Ray in this investigation in recent months did not involve the deposition in the Paula Jones case about Monica Lewinsky and their relationship, whatever it was. It involved the President's testimony before the Grand Jury many months later, viewed as a much more serious potential charge. But the President would make no admission of any kind with regard to that Grand Jury testimony, however controversial it was and remains. In addition, he would make no... and here's where the language becomes so fascinating. He wouldn't use active verbs in his acknowledgment. In other words, when he filed this down in Pulaski County in Arkansas, today, in Little Rock, that the evasive and misleading answers he gave was prejudicial to the administration. It doesn't say I blocked any investigation.

MARGARET WARNER: I obstructed justice.

TOM OLIPHANT: And it went on to insist to say that what we mean by that, it caused everybody to spend a lot of extra time and money and resources on the case - not that we covered it up - and even the use of the word "false;" it is not in the filing in Pulaski County, it is in the statements issued by Clinton and Ray.

STUART TAYLOR: And frankly to the extent that it focuses on the Paula Jones deposition and not on the Grand Jury law and getting Monica Lewinsky to lie, getting Betty Currie to lie, that's all good for Clinton because a lot of people look at what he did in the deposition and say what is he supposed to do? Are you surprised -- is he supposed to say yes, I had an affair.

MARGARET WARNER: We should remind people. This was the Paula Jones deposition -- he was suddenly blindsided and asked about a relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

STUART TAYLOR: He wasn't suddenly blindsided; he knew a month before the deposition they were asking-- and he had a choice. He could have gone ahead and lied, which is what he did, although he hasn't quite admitted that yet. He could have settled the case. Or he could have said I'm not going to testify about my private life. And so in that sense it was a very... it was not a spur of the moment thing at all. But I think that kind of gets lost in the shuffle and all he is really admitting to is being accidentally false while trying to be deliberately misleading in the deposition.

MARGARET WARNER: Here is something that's unclear and the way the spokesmen talked about. He used the word knowingly -- I knowingly gave these answers. Is he saying he knew at the time he was giving false answers? Is he admitting that, or is he saying I realize now that... Well, you explain.

TOM OLIPHANT: Again that's the perfect question. To show how this was done. Because knowingly does have context, but not... In the formal document, all you see is the word. But, for example, in the letter from his attorney, David Kendall, to the prosecutor, you get a narrative where you have some of the language Stuart was alluding to, that he was trying to walk this fine line in order not to disclose a sexual affair or whatever the heck you call that relationship. But he is not... he issaying almost that I discovered it in retrospect. In other words, I didn't go in there to lie is what Kendall is saying in this letter. But I realized....

STUART TAYLOR: I would have been lying if I meant to lie.

TOM OLIPHANT: This is why compromises I think are often ridiculous if you start to parse the sentences the way the President has.

STUART TAYLOR: Remember, his own lawyer, Greg Craig, said in late 1998 to the House, he was being "evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening." The next day Chuck Ruff, his other lawyer, the late Chuck Ruff, a great lawyer, said he thought he was being evasive but truthful. A reasonable person might think that he crossed over the line and what he said was false. Now he has given that last inch on that one front.

TOM OLIPHANT: It's a very important front because I think up until now, Stuart, the President's language-- I mean a lot of this was made in response to the civil contempt finding that Judge Susan Webber Wright hit him with after his testimony. What is different even if it is just in a White House statement is the use of the word "false." And this is what I mean about Ray's effort to get an admission from a sitting President of the United States however modulated of wrongdoing and that was the key interest of justice here.

STUART TAYLOR: I was just counting them and in that sentence there are 60 words between knowingly and false.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But let me go away from this textual analysis and ask you, Stuart, about Ray's decision here because he defended or he asserted why he did it. He thought this was -- served the administration of justice. Do you think it is the right prosecutorial call?

STUART TAYLOR: I think it probably is. Ray was in a very difficult position because he had what looked to him and to a lot of other people like a technically slam dunk criminal prosecution on various grounds. Now you're supposed to prosecute cases like that. But -- on the other hand - nobody really -- very few people really wanted Clinton prosecuted. And it was a good chance, a very good chance that a prosecution would have failed or the jury wouldn't have bought it. So Ray is sitting there, and there is no easy wait out for him. Well this seems like a pretty good way out for everybody.

TOM OLIPHANT: I think there was another factor. Also hanging in the background as you exercise this enormous discretion that a prosecutor has was the possibility or the likelihood of some kind of pardon from the next President, President Bush, should this case have proceeded. So that making that judgment about whether there's going to be a conviction, and then you also factor in President Clinton's intention to contest the case on the grounds that he's not guilty. And you have a situation, I think, that leads a prosecutor to get this admission in the interest of justice; that that's really what's important here is the acknowledgment. And I don't, from all I can gather today, I don't think Ray was very close to an actual decision whether to proceed with a criminal case.

STUART TAYLOR: Actually they've only had six or seven years.

TOM OLIPHANT: Right. And we're only three hours into this. But what I sense is a tremendous feeling not just of relief, but that Clinton and Ray were right to get this done.

MARGARET WARNER: Ray did say, Stuart, as you know, he cited Justice Robert Jackson when he was Attorney General, saying the citizens' safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth not victims, who serves the law not factional purposes and approaches his task with humility. How do you read that?

STUART TAYLOR: Well, I think the central message is punishing wrongdoing is not the only thing I'm supposed to have on my radar screen. There are lots of other factors that come into prosecution, and I think especially in an extraordinary case like this, the President of the United States. On the one hand he shouldn't be above the law, on the other hand we don't want to be a banana republic that starts trying to put its former Presidents in jail. He also quoted I think in the same spirit, a great learned hand "the spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure that you are right." And I think he went about this in that spirit, as in, well, you know-- he never decided I have to prosecute him. I have to get him. But he never decided to walk away from it, either.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you both.

FOCUS - THE LEGACY

JIM LEHRER: Now, some perspective on today, and the rest of the Clinton presidency. First, here are excerpts from the President's farewell remarks last night.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Tonight I want to leave you with three thoughts about our future. First: America must maintain our record of fiscal responsibility. Through our last four budgets, we've turned record deficits to record surpluses and we've been able to pay down $600 billion of our national debt; on track to be debt free by the end of the decade for the first time since 1835. Staying on that course will bring lower interest rates, greater prosperity, and the opportunity to meet our big challenges. Second: Because the world is more connected every day in every way, America's security and prosperity require us to continue to lead in the world. At this remarkable moment in history, more people live in freedom than ever before. Our alliances are stronger than ever. People all around the world look to America to be a force for peace and prosperity, freedom and security. The global economy is giving more of our own people and billions around the world the chance to work and live and raise their families with dignity. But the forces of integration that have created these good opportunities also make us more subject to global forces of destruction, to terrorism, organized crime and narco-trafficking, the spread of deadly weapons and disease, the degradation of the global environment. The expansion of trade hasn't fully closed the gap between those of us who live on the cutting edge of the global economy and the billions around the globe who live on the knife's edge of survival. This global gap requires more than compassion, it requires action. Global poverty is a powder keg that could be ignited by our indifference. Third: We must remember that America cannot lead in the world unless here at home we weave the threads of our coat of many colors into the fabric of one America. As we become ever more diverse, we must work harder to unite around our common values and our common humanity. We must work harder to overcome our differences in our hearts and in our laws. We must treat all our people with fairness and dignity, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, and regardless of when they arrived in our country. My days in this office are nearly through, but my days of service, I hope, are not. In the years ahead I will never hold a position higher nor a covenant more sacred than that of President of the United States. But there is no title I will wear more proudly than that of citizen. Thank you. God bless you, and God Bless America.

JIM LEHRER: And to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Puttingthis President and these eight years into some perspective, we're joined by NewsHour regulars, Presidential historians, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss; journalist and author Haynes Johnson; historian and presidential biographer, Richard Norton Smith; and historian Roger Wilkins. Well, I want to ask you all this question: How will history assess Bill Clinton, and how will today's news that he will not be indicted have an effect on the eventual answer? Haynes?

HAYNES JOHNSON: It's all the perfect metaphor for the Clinton presidency. We've not seen anything like this in our lifetime. Here-- we just watched-- last night he gives this farewell address, the public President, priding himself for all these great things that have been accomplished. And then, within hours, not even knowing it, we're going out, literally on the eve of a new presidency, wallowing, if you use that word, in all of this sort of scandal, the special prosecutors, even Linda Tripp's name emerged today. So all these aspects of the past... you can't separate the two of them, Ray. They are bound together. He did accomplish great things in many ways, more... Not that he gets credit for it. But also the personal qualities of this President, the private President versus the public President, we've just watched it right now. And that's what we're going to have to deal with for years and years to come.

RAY SUAREZ: Richard Norton Smith?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: I think Haynes is absolutely right. You know, one is tempted to say nothing so becomes Bill Clinton's presidency as his leaving it. I have been thinking all day about the duality of this presidency. You know, we've known, for the last few years now, this is the first President in the history of polling for whom pollsters required not one but two questions to gauge public opinion -- obviously, the job approval rating-- which, by the way, he leaves with record approval-- offset to a certain degree by personal approval. He also, however, today, in effect, became the first American President to go out of office with two farewell addresses. We saw the official version last night, which-- as is the manner of these things and with justifiable pride-- he tried to influence people like us and others who are going to be writing the first draft of history. And then this afternoon, you saw the second very unofficial farewell address in the statement that came out of the White House. And, again, as Haynes said, it gets to the extraordinary depths within depths within this man, a man of enormous ambition and abilities, those abilities and that ambition, I think, were equaled only by his appetites.

RAY SUAREZ: Doris?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: You know, I think precisely because of what has been said, it is going to take some years before we can get perspective on Bill Clinton. In the sense we know what the elements of his presidency are to be judged. There is impeachment on the one hand. There is the booming economy on the other. There's Kosovo, there's the failed health care, there's squandered opportunities, there's talent, all the things we might be saying now. But what it takes times to figure out is what weight to give to these various elements. For example, when Lyndon Johnson left office, there was Vietnam and civil rights -- much deeper divisions in some ways than what we're talking about with Bill Clinton. And at the beginning, Vietnam swallowed up the memory of Lyndon Johnson. Now, this many years later, when historians go to rank him in the polls, it's not that the memory has faded entirely, but the memory of civil rights have come up to maybe even go beyond Vietnam in terms of what we took for granted what he did in civil rights. At the same time, the transcripts have come out, so we see him in actual progress and working in a way that we didn't at the time. So these reputations go up and down. Eisenhower, for example; when he left office, people thought he was an amiable, wonderful guy. They liked him, but thought he was probably run by a lot of people in the White House while he read westerns and played golf. Only when the public papers came out did you see how complex, how clever, how much in control he really was. So I think we're going to have to wait until these feelings we have about impeachment and the economy subside, and until we see the public papers, till see the memoirs that come out of his administration. Did these people like him, did they respect him? We don't know a lot. I think that's why historians wait for a while before they judge.

RAY SUAREZ: So, Roger, what is your best guess, when the dust does settle, as Doris suggests, about what will endure?

ROGER WILKINS: Well, I think he is feeling, right now, "ouch." I have a law license which I have not used in almost 30 years, but if I had to give it up for five years, I would be hurting. And I think that is going to be remembered by a lot of people, that on the way out, he had to take punishment. He did some good things along the way, but the weaknesses are real, and the injuries to friends. We kind of forget that, the people who believed in him and came and worked for him and who took heavy hits in the reputation, in the pocketbook, in the psyche. Those will weigh heavily on the scale, I think.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: A big part of the historical judgment is that historians are interested in human beings and they're going to have to make a judgment on what kind of human being this really was. And, you know, there is a theme here that goes from tonight all the way back to the beginning of this administration. Remember, at the beginning of '93, a lot of the people around Clinton were saying, "we're after the Cold War, we Americans are now grown up; we only expect the President to be a political manager, it's not really so important that he be a unifying chief of state." Obviously, Clinton is going to have a hard time doing that because of the doubts about him that were raised in the campaign of 1992. And if you take that and trace it all the way through these eight years, even absent Monica, Clinton has not had the kind of influence that his enormous intelligence and people skills and many convictions and ability just to manage hour by hour, would have given him. It's really been like a low- grade fever for eight years. He has not been the President he could have been. But I think when historians get into those papers, as Doris was saying, ten or fifteen years from now, they're going to be knocked over by how smart the guy was, how articulate, what command of detail he showed in his private meetings, and this was someone who managed, hour by hour by hour, in a way that few Presidents can. If Clinton is trying to make the argument, "I'm responsible for this great economy, I'm responsible for foreign policy, the world being largely at bay for eight years," that's going to be a big weapon for him.

RAY SUAREZ: Go ahead.

ROGER WILKINS: The papers will also show the enormous amount of attention and energy that was diverted from the people's business to the defense of this man.

HAYNES JOHNSON: No question.

ROGER WILKINS: That's a giant hole in thisrecord.

HAYNES JOHNSON: And there will always be a sense of Bill Clinton, I think, of what might have been. The lost opportunities -- there is nobody that has ever sat with him, talked to him, met him... His worst enemies come away bowled over. The knowledge, the detail -- he reads-- he really reads books. He knows what you write, and you write, so forth. He is an amazing... and also, he deserves great credit for many things, not for all of the economy. But he was right. He did raise taxes, you know, in a slow economy. At the same time, he got his own party not... to cut spending and so all... and the result was the best economic period in American history. And yet there's this other thing of what this talent might have done had he not been diverted, as Roger and I think we are all saying, from that.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: The one interesting thing will be historians will find his presidency interesting, no doubt. So there will be lots of books written about him. And what that means each new historian has to come up with a slightly different slant on him. So it is likely to go back and forth as his presidency did. Nixon made this wonderful weird remark where he said, "I'm sure history will treat me fairly, even if the historians don't" - because he said, those historians are left-wingers.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me get Richard Norton Smith in here. Richard, if you could talk to historians writing in the future about the times, what would you want them to know about today and about the times that Bill Clinton lived in and was President in that would illuminate their work?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: You know, that's a great question, Ray. Any historian who tries to write the story of Bill Clinton is going to have to write the story of the culture that produced and sustained Bill Clinton. He was a polarizing figure, there's no doubt about that -- but not like an Andrew Jackson or Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. People don't talk about the Clinton revolution. He was, if anything, an incremental revolutionary. His genius, among other things, was in repositioning his party-- sometimes against its will-- in the middle of the road. He preempted the middle of the road time and again, which drove Republicans up the wall, because if you're not in the middle of the road, ipso facto, you're on the fringe. But there's one other thing I think historians will have to take into account. Much has been made about the fact that we are at political equilibrium. The parties have balanced in a way we haven't seen in 100 years. But I also think that we have achieved a kind of cultural equilibrium. You saw it this week at the John Ashcroft hearings. For better or worse, Bill, and to an even greater degree, Hillary Clinton, I think, will always be seen by their defenders and detractors as embodiments of the boomer culture and particularly the decade of the 60s. I mean, there are millions of Americans who saw that period, that dividing and defining period in history as democracy finally taking root, the women's movement, civil rights, environmentalism, gay rights. For millions of other people, however, that era and indeed that generation is seen as the one that dismissed standards that began a corseting of the culture that has only accelerated. I think people who try to write the story of Bill Clinton inevitably will be writing the story of the Clinton generation. And that's why, as Doris said, this is going to go back and forth, up and down. These reputations bounce around like corn in a popper.

RAY SUAREZ: There have been nodding heads around the table. Reaction?

HAYNES JOHNSON: I've been spending four years trying to write that book, as a matter of fact.

RAY SUAREZ: You should get him to write your introduction.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Thank you very much. But you're right, the backdrop of the times. We're at peace. We're not challenged by any enemies, no depression, no world war. The country feels good about itself. He's leaving with the highest job approval rating of any President since they've started taking the poll ratings and all that. And yet there's this other side in the equation of these times, and more people cynical and distrusting of leadership and government.

ROGER WILKINS: Talking about cynical and distrusting, I had a discussion in a 50-person undergraduate class yesterday about Clinton and his legacy. And I listened and I raised questions and I pressed issues. Finally a young woman said, "look, nobody looks to these politicians as moral leaders. They look for hard heads, and on that score, I think he was terrific." There was clapping. I have never had students clap for another student ever.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: There was once a time when they did look to their leaders for moral leadership.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: It's heartbreaking to hear that because in a way the conclusion may be, Roger and Doris, that over eight years-- because Bill Clinton basically said this isn't something a President has to do, and because we always saw that dichotomy in the polls between public and private-- Americans really have lower expectations of what a President can do to ennoble this society as Roosevelt did and Reagan... many others in different ways. That's, just to me, heartbreaking.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: I heard it said that President Clinton finds these discussions frustrating. I imagine if you are a living President, hearing your legacy talked about before you're even dead, it's very hard.

HAYNES JOHNSON: He was talking about it with Dick Morris.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: That's different. He likes to talk about it. But they said with Schlessinger, when he went with a '62 poll to Kennedy to show it to him and actually asked him to fill it out because he was a historian of "Profile in Courage," he started to fill it out and said, "no, I can't fill it out. Who the hell knows, except other Presidents, the way we can do." They only know the alternatives, the pressures, but he loved looking at the poll. He loved the fact that Truman and come up and Eisenhower had fallen down so he devoured every instance of it.

RAY SUAREZ: So, come back in 20 years and we'll have another discussion on this. Thank you all very much.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Some final words now from Shields and Gigot-- syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist, Paul Gigot.

Mark, the deal with the independent prosecutor, Mr. Ray, was it a proper and just resolution of the case?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it was, Jim. I think there is no question that public opinion measured as recently as the "Wall Street Journal" poll this week showed people did not want Bill Clinton to be indicted; they didn't want him to be tried. They wanted this to be over. And I think Bill Clinton had worked tirelessly, listening to the historians talk about his own concern, about his legacy. He worked tirelessly, almost frenetically to come up with a major breakthrough in the last days whether it was Northern Ireland or the Middle East.

JIM LEHRER: The Middle East.

MARK SHIELDS: And this wasn't the announcement he was looking for, I'm sure. But I think it is an announcement the country will accept.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Paul?

PAUL GIGOT: I don't know. There is no question Mark is right about the public desire to close this. The polls were about two to one really. But Robert Ray had the duty to show that nobody is above the law. And that is his sworn oath as a prosecutor. Whether this is a balance that's appropriate, I thought that Robert Ray bent over a little bit here toward the side of getting this case over.

JIM LEHRER: You think he should have gone ahead and prosecuted him?

PAUL GIGOT: I don't know all of the facts that he had. I think though his obligation as a prosecutor was to leave the ultimate questions, maybe leave the question of a pardon to George W. Bush. What Bill Clinton gave up here was not that much -- as Tom Oliphant and Stuart were talking about - basically he gave up the word "false." That's what he admitted here. There wasn't a lot of movement. He didn't admit - he didn't have to use the word lie. And the five-year sanction is, for the law license, I don't think he was going to practice law anyway. He did face disbarment in Arkansas. So I think maybe the fact that he settled it is good. The sanction seems to me to be that Robert Ray did pretty well here for Bill Clinton.

JIM LEHRER: Pretty well?

MARK SHIELDS: I disagree. I think the sanctions are serious. And I think there's an admission there that, look, I went in and did not tell the truth. And I attempted to be evasive. I attempted to be clever, but I overstepped the bounds and it is going to cost me five years. Losing your law license for five years - I mean, usually that's somebody trifling with somebody else's estate or something of the sort -- paying a fine. But I think that Robert Ray did a service, whether he intended to or not, to George W. Bush. This country politically is precarious right now. George W. Bush relies upon the goodwill that comes to a new President, the sense of national unity that we want this President to do well, we want our country to do well. Nothing would have been worse for his presidency and for that sense of goodwill, that climate, than to have Bill Clinton indicted, tried, whether George Bush should pardon him or not. We would have been right back where we were.

JIM LEHRER: What about that?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, there is no question that George W. Bush agrees with Mark on that one - and he sent that signal loud and clear saying I'm not going to pardon anybody before he is indicted. And his father, the former President, said I think we should put this behind us. And Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary, said the Republicans did want this over with. There is no question about that. So, in that sense, Bush did not want to face that difficult issue. Of course that's why, you know, they run for office, is to face some of those issues.

JIM LEHRER: What about doing it today, literally the afternoon of his last day as President of the United States, and according to what Tom and Stuart had said earlier, both of them reported Ray insisted on this -- that it had to be done while Bill Clinton was still a sitting president.

PAUL GIGOT: If you are going to do a deal like this, it makes sense to do it today while he is President, while you still have maximum publicity, as Stuart said, and while it doesn't trail off, that it does seem to be the fitting ending to the presidency. It is still part of his active presidential legacy. So in that I think that probably Robert Ray had to give something up in order to get that.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, what do you think about today?

MARK SHIELDS: I think today, I could understand RobertRay not wanting to do it, you know, so it's buried in the truss ads on page 27 two weeks from now. I mean it gets attention. It's an admission, a confession on the part of the President. And he is the President doing it. I think it makes sense. And for Bill Clinton, it gets stepped on by the weekend news, which is the inauguration of a new President, the speech he gives tomorrow and Jesse Jackson yesterday and whatever and whoever he pardons tonight.

JIM LEHRER: Well, there is word that he will pardon some folks before he leaves office.

MARK SHIELDS: It's a big day.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Let's go back to the general conversation about Bill Clinton. The two of you have spent a lot of time on this program on Friday nights and other times talking about the presidency of Bill Clinton. Sitting here tonight, based on what you've heard the other ones say, too...

PAUL GIGOT: They were fabulous.

JIM LEHRER: What would you say about him? How would you characterize this man? What do you have to say about Bill Clinton?

PAUL GIGOT: I think something a colleague of mine Dan Henninger at the "Wall Street Journal" wrote. He said that Bill Clinton made himself larger than life and in the process made the presidency smaller. I mean, he was great theater. He was so interesting, his life was so interesting, the way he carried himself. He had so much talent. And yet we talk so much-- we know-- he once said he wanted to demystify the presidency. In a way he demystified it too much. I mean, we learned about boxers and briefs - the psycho drama of his marriage and his relationship with Al Gore. His legacy, I think, is relatively small for a two-term President. The footprints are too small, particularly after 1994. I think he was mostly tactical. He responded to Republicans. He was brilliant at that. He was brilliant at --

JIM LEHRER: Did he outfox the Republicans most of the way?

PAUL GIGOT: For an awful lot of it he outfoxed them but only in a partial way because remember Republicans have now won the House four times in a row. They hadn't held it for 40 years. He did it in a way that helped him, didn't always help his party. Got some things done, but had to change his mind on a lot of issues along the way: Trade, welfare. He ended up signing things that Republicans tried to get, welfare reform, for 20 or 30 years.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, two quick anecdotes. One reported by Jim Hoagland, the Pulitzer Prize winning foreign policy columnist for the "Washington Post" talking about having a recent dinner with Bill Clinton, where he just asked the question, sort of in a polite way about his trip to Asia in which Bill Clinton in the course of the answer said, you know, the per capita income in Vietnam is $359. That's about the same as Pakistan. And Hoagland, who is a very knowledgeable guy, says, I had to take his word for it. David Gergen when he was counsel to Bill Clinton told a story about a briefing -- four of the ranking experts in medicine are in the Oval Office briefing Bill Clinton on a very arcane area of the health plan. Clinton is sitting there and driving Gergen angry as a counselor to him doing the "New York Times" Sunday Times cross word puzzle in ink - in ink. He is seething. He said these people have given up their weekend. 20 minutes into the discussion he looks up, Jim, and asks the one trenching question nobody in the room had even thought of -- that's how able he was. Now the only reason we know these two stories is because two privileged observers tell them. We should have known them through the press conferences. I mean, he could have used the press conferences as a great educational device, as a great advocacy device, but he couldn't. Why couldn't he? Because we didn't have press conferences because he was on the defensive. Sometimes his political opponents but often times self-inflicted whether it was the Travel Office, whether it was investigations about Whitewater, whether it was the impeachment or Paula Jones. He never used the press conference. We never saw him. He could have changed the job description of President to a point where we would have said, gee, a President really should know those things and George W. Bush would have been hard pressed to meet that standard. As far as the Democrats are concerned, Paul is right. He drove the Republicans bats. Mark Russell, America's greatest humorist, said that Bill Clinton gets impeached, he has an affair with the White house intern and the result is that the Republican Speaker of the House resigns, which was true in 1998. I mean Newt Gingrich resigns and Bob Livingston follows him out the door and Bill Clinton survives. They said of Grover Cleveland, Democrats did, we love him for the enemies he has made. Every time Democrats got down on Bill Clinton, and they did and they were disappointed and he was dazzling and disappointing ultimately, there was a fondness for him because the people on the other side hated him as much as any liberals ever hated Richard Nixon. It was an irrational passion.

JIM LEHRER: What is the... Where did the seeds come for this intense dislike of Bill Clinton from intense conservatives?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I think part of it is what Richard Norton Smith talked about, which is a legacy of the 60s, which was such a polarizing time, and the cultural divide that has come out of that. I also think it is part of -- it is generational, the baby boom generation - but it's also I think that -- the relentless lying, what is perceived by his opponents as he just doesn't tell the truth at all -- everything. This is a guy who comes out for campaign finance reform.

JIM LEHRER: Is that uniquely Clinton?

PAUL GIGOT: I think he shares that with Richard Nixon. That's what liberals thought about Nixon, too; that Nixon was not honest, either. I think that they have that-- they made their opponents on either side think that about them.

MARK SHIELDS: I think it's deeper than that. I think there are striking parallels here. Richard Nixon was the poster boy of a decade Democrats and liberals hated, the 1950s, Joe McCarthy, the smear, you're guilty until proved innocent. Then Nixon gets elected and comes to office at a time of Democratic ascendancy when the Democrats are the dominant party, and what does he do - he preempts their agenda, Richard Nixon indexes the Social Security payment to the cost of living; Richard Nixon creates the Environmental Protection Agency. Richard Nixon has quotas and affirmative action in government contracts and hiring. Bill Clinton did the opposite. He was the poster boy of the 60s. It was flag burning, it was dope -- it was sexual promiscuity -- all those things we didn't participate in, -- and along he comes at a time of Republican conservative ascendancy and he co-opted them and neutralized them. And he balanced the budget. He cut taxes. He cut welfare and I think he just -- he stole their clothes while they were in swimming.

JIM LEHRER: Are you going to miss him?

PAUL GIGOT: Jim, in some ways I am. I think sometimes that if I had known in 1992 what he would have done for my career in political journalism, I might have voted for him. He has been very good for business.

MARK SHIELDS: Paul is not going to have a chance to miss him because he is not going to go away. I mean, he is here.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: And speaking of not going away, before we go-- this last night of the Clinton presidency-- President Clinton reading his favorite poem. It's part of then-poet Laureate Robert Pinsky's project of asking Americans to read their favorite poems.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I'd like to share Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Concord Hymn," a poem he wrote to commemorate the completion of the battle monument, to honor the fallen heroes at the battles of Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War, and to invoke the enduring spirit of patriotism that inspires us down to the present day. "By the rude bridge that arched the flood, their flag to April's breeze unfurled, here once the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard 'round the world. The foe, long since in silence slept, alike the conqueror in silence sleeps, in time the ruined bridge has swept down the dark stream which seaward creeps. On this green bank, by this soft stream, we set today a votive stone that memory may their deed redeem. When like our sires, our sons are gone, spirit that made those heroes there, to die, and leave their children free. Let time and nature gently spare the shaft we raise to them, and thee."

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday: President Clinton made a deal with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to avoid prosecution after he leaves office; and the combative Senate hearings on Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft ended, Republicans predicted he'd be confirmed. Before we go, a reminder that we'll be here tomorrow with special coverage of the Presidential inauguration, beginning at 11:00 AM Eastern Time; we'll also see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.